Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

HILLARY CLINTON'S CASH MACHINE....The latest from Hillaryland:

The New York senator raised more than $6 million in the first three months of the year, according to papers filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission. The $2 million-a-month fundraising pace gave her $19.7 million cash on hand at the end of March for her reelection.

"It's mind-blowing. She is raising money at a presidential level," said Douglas Muzzio, a professor at Baruch College.

So let's see....$20 million now....another $10 million over the summer....total campaign costs of, say, ten bucks or so....gives her....$30 million dollars in the bank at the end of the year.

Give or take a million or two. Not bad.

Kevin Drum 1:13 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (156)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Can't people donate to, I dunno, close races?

Posted by: Steve Brady on April 14, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

It makes my mind weary even to contemplate the arguments I'll have to make on Hillary's behalf if she becomes the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.

I think Hillary's actually a pretty good politician and Democrat, mostly, but I just don't want to have to think about dealing with her baggage whether she deserves it or not.

Please, Democrats, give us a nominee who arrives on the scene with an easier case.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Fellow Democrats:

Do we REALLY want to be talking about Monica in 2008?

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Russ Feingold is not a happy Democrat.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

No war mongers in 2008. Period. I'll sit on my vote if necessary. Nuff said.

Posted by: Traven on April 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

For the good of the country, she needs to let someone else take the lead (she should feel free to be king/queenmaker).

Posted by: Foobar on April 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK
Do we REALLY want to be talking about Monica in 2008?

I don't see why not.

You think much of the electorate, asked to compare the 8 years of Clinton (even with Monica) to the, at that point, immediately preceding 8 years of Republican "leadership" (without Monica) will be in a position where they'll prefer continuation of the latter to the former?

Not that I think there is much of a Monica issue to be made against Hillary, in any case.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

"Give or take a million or two. Not bad."

Depends on your perspective, I guess. If she is planning to use what she need, and donate the rest strategically to help in close races, it is not bad at all. If it means that Hillary Clinton is planning to run in '08, then it is very, very bad. Unless you're a Republican, of course.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 14, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

The article failed to mention that most of the contributions are from Republicans.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

So, alex, you're saying Hillary is fleecing the repubs? EXCELLENT.

Posted by: elfranko on April 14, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

'frankly0' posted:

"I think Hillary's actually a pretty good politician and Democrat, mostly, but I just don't want to have to think about dealing with her baggage whether she deserves it or not."

The so-called "baggage" is old hat. Unfortunately, even in what is supposed to be an enlightened society, the real problem is that she is a woman. There will be too many husbands who will lie to their wives and only claim they voted for her.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

elfranko: So, alex, you're saying Hillary is fleecing the repubs?

Fleecing? No, I'm afraid they'll get their money's worth.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Not that I think there is much of a Monica issue to be made against Hillary, in any case.

Yeah, I'm sure that'll stop the Republicans from bringing up the subject at every opportunity. ("Why did Mrs Clinton not put a stop to Bill's immoral behavior over all these years? If she can't control him, how could she control the country? Why did she back up his obvious lies regarding his adultery? What kind of morals did SHE exhibit?" Blah, blah, blah.

Look, all I'm asking for is someone with a cleaner slate. Some things are just better left in the past.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

That still leaves her roughly 80 million behind Mark Warner. :)

Posted by: plunge on April 14, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think she'd make a pretty good President. My only concern is whether she'd make the best campaign, and whether she could overcome the hatred so many feel towards her.

As for her support for the war, I don't blame her much for that. Many good people have various opinions there. We have a mess in Iraq, due to 5 years of incompetance and lies on the part of W and company. Perhaps we should get out now, (I think so) but there is an argument that things would be worse for everyone if we did.

Posted by: Richard Weaver on April 14, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

'frankly0' posted:

"I think Hillary's actually a pretty good politician and Democrat, mostly, but I just don't want to have to think about dealing with her baggage whether she deserves it or not."

It doesn't matter what kind of baggage a candidate comes in with. The Swift Boaters will create something far worse.

Posted by: anandine on April 14, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, I'm sure that'll stop the Republicans from bringing up the subject at every opportunity.

My point was that bringing up the issue isn't going to hurt her.

But, yeah, whoever Democrats nominate, the Republicans will say things about. If the worst they have to say is that the candidate is married to someone who was the most popular departing President since regular opinion polling was invented who also was the target of a political witchhunt by the Republicans that was both unsuccessful and wildly unpopular with the American people, then, frankly, I like the Democratic candidate's chances.

That doesn't mean we still couldn't blow it, but, really, the Monica "issue" isn't something to cower in fear of.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

"Not that I think there is much of a Monica issue to be made against Hillary, in any case."
Posted by: cmdicely

Naw she'll probably surround herself with studly interns.
I just don't know if I could handle her cat-r-wallin for 4 or (heaven forbid) 8 years. Her voice is like nails on a chalk board to me.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 14, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

"the Monica "issue" isn't something to cower in fear of."
Posted by: cmdicely

Hell no, you should be proud of it. I actually started liking Bill when the Monica thing happened.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 14, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary is boring, uninspiring, and totally pedestrian. She's a female John Kerry in many ways. she represents everything about a dying era of Democratic politics that the American people are tired of. That, and I'm not very happy about the idea of an American dynasty, be it Democrat or Republican.

Posted by: plunge on April 14, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'd prefer to see them nominate someone besides Hillary--but not Joe Biden.

Posted by: Ringo on April 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

In and of itself, $30 million (or $40-$50 million) will not be enough to get her nominated, unless it is spent trying to destroy all the alternatives. Which, I suppose, could happen. (And might lead to Gore getting in at the last minute. Which might not be the boon many of us believe it would be.)

Look how fast Dean's bundle (and frontrunner status) disappeared in '04. Now, granted, he had less competent campaign management than Hillary will. But her negatives aren't going anywhere. They may be headed up, in fact. She's had to start becoming more critical of the Bush administration, which is costing her some of the grudging tolerance she'd been building up on the right; meanwhile, more of the left is beginning to notice her record on the war, etc. Ironically, triangulation is working against her now, and she doesn't have a lot of warm and fuzzy feeling out there to fall back upon.

Dems want to win even more in '08 than they did in '04. Now, as in '04, that doesn't necessarily mean we'll pick a candidate who actually can win. But it does mean we'll have to convince ourselves Hillary can win before we nominate her. And I seriously doubt we'll be able to do that.

What the money does for her is give her the ability to ride out some bad primaries. That's important: she could wind up the only one standing. But at some point she's still going to have to get someone to vote for her. Depending on how the convention rules work (superdelegates, etc.), I could see the primaries end with nobody in the driver's seat.

I think folks will be really receptive to a fresh face. But who? Maybe Warner in the center. Probably Feingold in the early primaries on the left, until people begin fretting about his own electability problems. Not Kerry, not Edwards, not Clinton, not Biden, not Daschle, regrettably probably not Clark. (And merely thinking about Bayh and Vilsack is more effective than Ambien, without the side effects.)

As in '04, everyone seems to have at least one major flaw as a candidate. Except maybe Warner, and that remains to be seen.

And for the trolls: at least our candidates have something approaching a clue. George Allen, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Condoleezza Rice, sheesh.

Posted by: Bill Camarda on April 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (he of the Pentagon Papers) said Thursday that he would officially announce his bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination on Monday.

Odds are his entire campaign will take in less cash in the next two years than Hillary's between now and Monday.

Posted by: Grumpy on April 14, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

"And for the trolls: at least our candidates have something approaching a clue. George Allen, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Condoleezza Rice, sheesh."
Posted by: Bill Camarda

I heard Cindi on a conservative talk show yesterday afternoon and she quite adamantly stated that she doesn't want to run for Prez. What a kick in the nuts. I really wanted to see a Hillary vs. Condi. campaign.

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 14, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

OOPS!!! I meant "I heard Condi..."

Posted by: Lurker42 on April 14, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

It's quite humorous to watch the liberals once again fantasize about capturing the White House with a nominee who would quickly surrender to the dictators like Saddam and Mollah Omar.

Fortunately for all of us, the American voter has a good instictive understanding of what it takes to be the President, and who has it. The thorough beating of Kerry at the polls in 2004 was no accident, but a deliberate rejection by the American voters of a candidate who could not even articulate a single coherent idea in the entire campaign without contradicting himself.

I cannot wait for the election night of November 2008 when the liberal blogosphere will be full of claims of another election won for the Republican Presidential nominee by Diebold. That will be yet another great day for those who care about our national security.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 14, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

If she uses it to help win back Congress in 2006 she would have a lot more friends come 2008. If she hoards it, not so much.

Posted by: toast on April 14, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

No sitting senator has won the presidency since JFK. To win the presidency you need either to be a v.p. or a western or southern governor. This is true of either side, but it seems everyone in the senate is running for president. As for Rep there is no more polarizing figure that will raise money for the r's or deliver votes. Frisk is not seeking re-election to the senate (unlike Hillary) to devote his full time to running for pres.
Yes there are lots of vulnerable r's up for re-election but since most of the money goes to the top few, these candidates are running on shoe string budgets.

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

If it comes down to Hillary vs. Condoleezza Rice, I'm voting Republican. I'm serious. American politics is more dynastic today than it has been in history - there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in the Oval Office since before I was born. Even if you just look at the top of the ticket, even if you assume that no political family is worse than any other, Clinton getting elected would give us two pairs of related presidents in the past 20 years, compared with two in the entire rest of our history. This is not trending in the direction of more democratic or egalitarian.

If the worst they have to say is that the candidate is married to someone who was the most popular departing President since regular opinion polling was invented who also was the target of a political witchhunt by the Republicans that was both unsuccessful and wildly unpopular with the American people, then, frankly, I like the Democratic candidate's chances.

This isn't why I dislike Hillary as a candidate, but also, don't assume that the witchhunt was unsuccessful just because it was unpopular. (Yes, I know that it was unsuccessful because it didn't get him out of office, but bear with me.) The Republicans are the party that repeats over and over and over again the message that government doesn't work. So when they get their way and screw it up, it might discredit those specific Republicans, but it also reinforces the narrative. Gingrich got laughed out of office because of the witchhunt, but you might have noticed the party itself hasn't done too badly. When we hear "Monica" we probably think "perverted partisan persecution", but just as many probably think "Congress wasting time... again."

Posted by: Cyrus on April 14, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

harris/schmidt 08

Posted by: apeman on April 14, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Assuming he wins reelection this year (which he should do handily), our gov here in TN may look pretty good in '08.

BS-Physics from Harvard, self-made millionaire businessman, governor of a Southern state, with a proven ability to win in hostile territory.

Bredesen/Clark '08!

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 14, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK
If it comes down to Hillary vs. Condoleezza Rice, I'm voting Republican. I'm serious. American politics is more dynastic today than it has been in history - there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in the Oval Office since before I was born. Even if you just look at the top of the ticket, even if you assume that no political family is worse than any other, Clinton getting elected would give us two pairs of related presidents in the past 20 years, compared with two in the entire rest of our history. This is not trending in the direction of more democratic or egalitarian.

Eh. Yeah, I dislike Presidential dynasties. But, given that I dislike dangerous gross incompetence in the executive more, I still wouldn't vote for Rice over Clinton.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 14, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

The thorough beating of Kerry at the polls in 2004 was no accident, but a deliberate rejection by the American voters of a candidate who could not even articulate a single coherent idea in the entire campaign without contradicting himself.

Only a brainwashed Republican would consider Bush winning by 3% a "thorough beating." Dude, Kerry ran a terrible campaign and *almost* beat Bush anyways.

Why don't you try gloating over something the GOP/Bush is actually good at-- declaring war and fucking it up something terrible comes to mind. Lying about things they don't even need to lie about, running up the biggest defecit in American history in less than 6 years...hmmm. So many things to chose from.

Sorry, but with Bush's poll numbers where they are right now I wouldn't be strutting around like he's the bestest president ever. He's going to be the shame of your party. Heck, there are GOP people already running as "Reagan Republicans" for the election this year.

Posted by: zoe kentucky on April 14, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Cyrus: there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in the Oval Office since before I was born

You're making me feel old. Please tell me you're including GHWB as VP.

Clinton getting elected would give us two pairs of related presidents in the past 20 years, compared with two in the entire rest of our history

Ok, John and John Quincy Adams. Is the 2nd pair TR and FDR, or am I missing someone? In all fairness (and to add emphasis to your argument) TR and FDR were only distant cousins, were in office 24 years apart, and in different parties.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

She is raising money at a presidential level.
And
$30 million dollars in the bank at the end of the year.

ISTM that $30M is barely senatorial level money, and nowhere near presidential level.

Posted by: Roger on April 14, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

While Hillary has some interesting policies in the works - Sensible more ergonomic health care, a Shengen style ( no passports ) agreement for the NAFTA states* and a common currency for the entire hemisphere I feel her war mongering baggage will tell against her and she will fall short at the last hurdle. Think Gore, Kerry differention problem.

Damn shame but there you go. The first female president is far more likely to be Condi Rice inmho.

*This is already in progress for Australians btw.

Posted by: professor rat on April 14, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Cyro, please learn more about Condi. Go back to her days at Stanford if you want to see her managerial skills.

Posted by: toast on April 14, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

TR and FDR were only distant cousins

Understatement. I just looked it up - fifth cousins.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Non-expert on campaign finance here.

Can anyone explain to me why things can't work such that any money she doesn't spend on the '06 Senate campaign is money she has to relinquish e.g. to the DNC, or return to the contributors?

What if I really, really wanted to make sure she gets re-elected to the Senate in '06 (I of course realize she's a lock as it stands, but hypothetically she could have been in a competitive race right now), but I really prefer someone else as the Democratic nominee for president in '08? Would there be any way for me to make donations that support both of those goals?

Posted by: Foo Bar on April 14, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Assuming he wins reelection this year (which he should do handily), our gov here in TN may look pretty good in '08.

More power to him! Just suggest that he doesn't consult with Gore on how to win the state.

Posted by: pencarrow on April 14, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think Hillary's main weakness is that somewhat consistantly, at least since Carter, the candidate getting the most votes seems to be the one of the two who is less "political." I think the only exception was Bush senior, and he mainly won because Dukakis was such a total geek.


Whatever Hillary's actual streghths and weaknesses, she is certainly political, I mean, deciding that your first elective office is going to be junior Senator from New York after you've never even lived there. It almost does not matter what her positions are, it sort of smacks of political opportunism. She's the female Kerry. Its kind of like, "I may not know art, but I know what I like." People may not know exactly who would be a good president, but they are pretty sure that if your main qualification was that you were the spouse of a former president it just seems, well, pretty "political."

I bet Dean would have won in 2004. Bush basically stopped just short of admitting he was a total moron when running against Kerry, becuase for whatever reason Bush knows that presidential elections don't turn on the intellectual vote.

However, Dean would not have been as easy to campaign against.

Anyway, we need another candidate like Clinton, and its not his wife. Everyone inside the beltway has sort of gone along with Bush for six or seven years. Someone new needs to come out of the boonies and call it as he or she sees it.

Posted by: hank on April 14, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

zoe kentucky I always find it interesting that in every topic a lib brings up Pres Bush poll numbers. In case you missed the memo, George W. will never run another race. I agree Kerry ran a terrible campaign, George W. won 80% of the counties in America. As for dynastys I will go with the idea that Jeb runs and then we would have 20 years of Bush Presidents... Kind of fun huh, oh by the way there is one other brother also.
Getting back to the topic, No Democratic or liberal web site is going on record as saying that the dems will take back the senate in 2006, after all, you just need 7 addidtional. Or how about the house are you going to change about 25 seats in your favor. If you want polls, the numbers are a posible 1 or 2 in the senate pickup for dems and 2 to 4 in the house. If the war chest amased by Hillary was spread around there would be significant numbers of races, but we know who its all about.
So unless you want to make a prediction on taking back the house or senate, I would suggest, touching base with the reality of being the minority party.

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Pencarrow, in that respect Bredesen is Gore's polar opposite. Gore was a native son who suffered from a perception that he had gone Washingtonian and lost his roots. Bredesen is actually an outsider- a Yankee, for that matter (born in NJ, raised in NY)- who managed to get elected in TN despite his roots. I think he'd fare better here than Gore did in '00.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 14, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

hank: first elective office is going to be junior Senator from New York after you've never even lived there

It's tradition here in NY to keep a seat open for a carpetbagger. RFK did the same thing.

I bet Dean would have won in 2004.

I don't know if that's true, but it certainly would have been more interesting than the TANG hero vs. Wooden Man.

Dean would not have been as easy to campaign against.

You mean he knows how to fight? Hey, Dean may have been governor of Vermont, but he grew up here in NY.

we need another candidate like [Bill] Clinton

If you mean someone who knows how to campaign, I agree.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis... thanks for the lead. I'd readily support a fresh new figure as a candidate. Could really help improve voter perceptions.

Posted by: pencarrow on April 14, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

To win the presidency you need either to be a v.p. or a western or southern governor.

Or a former General. Go Wes Clark!

Posted by: Edo on April 14, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Ms. Clinton's supporters are the same as any Republican's: wealthy corporations.

Posted by: Hostile on April 14, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis: Bredesen is actually an outsider- a Yankee, for that matter (born in NJ, raised in NY)- who managed to get elected in TN despite his roots.

Alright! The country seems to have forgotten that truly great presidents (TR, FDR) come from NY. (meaning grew up here - moved here as a carpetbagger doesn't count). So the only thing we can do is have stealth NY candidates. What the heck, if it gets the job done.

About that born in NJ ... Maybe his mother went into labor on the turnpike and had no choice. It's probably been almost long enough to wash off the toxic waste.

I'd also like to remind folks that, like WV, TN is really a Yankee state. The people voted to stay in the Union, but the corrupt gov't didn't listen. Hey, eastern TN was great for the Yankee troops and sucked for the Rebs (oops, you're from the wrong side).

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

daveyo,

Kind of fun huh, oh by the way there is one other brother also.

you really need stop drinking the Kool-aid if you think Neil Bush has any chance whatsoever of being elected President.

George W. won 80% of the counties in America.

so what? He didn't win 80% of the popular vote which of course is what you are implying. Go peddle your "facts" somewhere other than the reality-based community. I suggest you try red-state or LGF; they'll eat up your "facts" like candy.

Posted by: Edo on April 14, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

So the only thing we can do is have stealth NY candidates.

That Eliot Spitzer guy sure looks promising. Looks like we'll have to wait until after his stint in Albany though, eh? So that puts us at 2012 or 2016?

Posted by: Edo on April 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

I appreciate the information on long past presidents. However there is a term called the "new south" without it you do not win the presidency. For all of his complaigning, if Gore would have only won his home state he would have won.(I wonder why that is not mentioned). So that being said, would Hillary carry Arkansas? Or any other southern state. The population shift is real and in 2010 the south will hold even more electorial votes.

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

So that being said, would Hillary carry Arkansas?

Unlikely, but I bet Wes Clark would.

Posted by: Edo on April 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I'll probably vote for Hillary if nominated.

But oh doesn't it hurt to see Hillary scoop up so much money that other democrats sorely need to win in 2006? In 1996, Bill Clinton cut himself from the Democrats and won re-election with almost no coat-tails. He was a pretty good president overall but a miserable leader of the Democratic party. Now Hillary is doing it again, vigorously grabbing the cash (have you seen her email pitches? sheesh)

I wish the Dems would all pledge to ignore 2008, until 2006 is over. First things first, party - first and all that. But it isn't going to happen. Like it or not - it is a huge failure of leadership.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

'professor rat' posted:

"The first female president is far more likely to be Condi Rice inmho"

Candi can never run.

All you would have to do is air the video of her saying – 'Who would have imagined that they would hijack airliners and use them as missiles to ram into buildings ?'.

AFTER she was told by the Clinton administration officials that al-Qaeda had plans to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings, and AFTER the American military surrounded the G8 meeting place with SAM batteries to counter just such an attack during the Summer before 9/11.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 14, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Only a brainwashed Republican would consider Bush winning by 3% a "thorough beating." Dude, Kerry ran a terrible campaign and *almost* beat Bush anyways.

For what it's worth, you were responding to a fake tbrosz.

Posted by: Ralph on April 14, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

zoe kentucky I always find it interesting that in every topic a lib brings up Pres Bush poll numbers. In case you missed the memo, George W. will never run another race.

And every time, just as predictably, someone like you thinks it's meaningful to point out that Bush won't be running again.

Get this through your barely literate head, daveyo: right now Bush is a liability for your party. It doesn't matter that he's not running again. It's his party that gets damaged. You think it mattered to GOP Congressmen in 1974 that "Nixon wasn't running again"?

I agree Kerry ran a terrible campaign, George W. won 80% of the counties in America.

It has already been pointed out to you that, even if it's true, this is a highly misleading statistic.

As for dynastys I will go with the idea that Jeb runs and then we would have 20 years of Bush Presidents... Kind of fun huh, oh by the way there is one other brother also.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. I guess you're saying that a degradation of democratic values is okay with you as long as your party benefits.

And do you think another Bush could win the presidency now?

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 14, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

I do like how Clark unmercifully whales on Republicans.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

daveyo, do you really think your "80% of counties" nonsense conveys any useful information whatsoever? Last time I checked, counties do not vote. Neither are they even approximately equally sized.

According to the Census Bureau's 2005 population estimates, counties range in population from 62 (Loving Co., TX) to 9,935,475 (Los Angeles Co., CA). If you start adding up counties starting with the smallest and moving up, you have to add up the first 1,149 counties (which is 37% of all the counties in the US) just to match the population of Los Angeles county by itself. That's pretty darn close to half of your "80% of all counties" right there. If you add up the first 80% of all US counties together, all told you end up with a grand total of just under 21% of the US population.

In short, I know it's your favorite talking point, but your "data" is worthless.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Tbroz is so funny?

Posted by: Booo on April 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Your not going to get a top notch repub. running for pres. Nobdy wants to go in and deal with the mess G.W. is leaving behind,I would almost bet the R's may let Hilary have the Job just so they can pin all the problems of G.W. on a Dem.

Posted by: Booo on April 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis sorry to confuse you with facts, but in neither election did Clinton get 50% of the vote. The topic is Hillarys cash machine, and how the dems really need it spread around. Yet not one has responded to that, they simply want to dispute how many counties George W. won. Any question why no one will dare on this site say "we dems will take back the house or the senate," come on, if Pres Bush is so terrible and the Reps are in such disarray it should be easy. Come on step up to the plate.....

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Anandine
It doesn't matter what kind of baggage a candidate comes in with. The Swift Boaters will create something far worse.

Oh don't you wish, so that you could finally stop pretending that the swiftboating wasn't because many, many Vietnam vets viscerally hated his guts for his actions, that it was just politics as usual. Guess again.

You won't see another swiftboating unless Kerry runs again.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Daveo Um A good portion of the south doesn't even exist antmore (Katrina) And I think most will remember The R's, and wonder why they can never go home.

Posted by: Booo on April 14, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

WE WILL WIN THE HOUSE AND SENATE BACK BECAUSE OF YOUR FALIURES.

Posted by: Booo on April 14, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

I bet Dean would have won in 2004.

WOOHOO! That's a funny one!

I actually like Hillary. I hope she runs. She's pretty much the smartest person in any room she's in. I'm all for each side bringing their best candidate forward.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis sorry to confuse you with facts, but in neither election did Clinton get 50% of the vote.

So what? It only takes a plurality to win. Clinton got more votes than either Bush or Dole.

The topic is Hillarys cash machine, and how the dems really need it spread around. Yet not one has responded to that, they simply want to dispute how many counties George W. won.

You're the one who brought up the ridiculous "counties" thing. And we're not disputing how many counties he won, we're saying it isn't meaningful. The twenty percent of counties he lost contain nearly as many people as the ones he won.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 14, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Keep in mind the right wanted to give Condi the pres. she don't want the mess left by the Republicans.

Posted by: Booo on April 14, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Booo I live in florida and went through 4 hurricanes in one season, 3 that directly hit where I lived. Unlike the pathetic Democratic govenor and mayor in Louisiana, Floridas leadership shined. We were hit with just as hard and more hurricanes, big difference, his name is Jeb. As for going back, every report shows that New Orleans will become more hispanic as many have moved to the area for work in the rebuilding. So without the old solid dem vote from New Orleans, you are right it is firmly in the r column. Doesn't anyone wonder why only Louisiana had problems dealing with a hurricane, when last year had the most reported hurricanes on record.

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary's Senate run was a distraction and a drag on fundraising for Gore in 2000, and I see no indication that her success will help any other Democrat in 2006 or 2008. In other words, as always it's the party in service to the Clintons, as opposed to the other way around.
We have wasted huge amounts of energy defending them (from admittedly ridiculous charges) that would have been better used to elect other Democrats and protect our society from these bandits.
So, no, I'm not a big supporter. I'm damn tired of them both.

Posted by: Jim 7 on April 14, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

daveyo, your "facts" are useless. "80% of counties" is irrelevant because counties don't vote. People vote, so population percentages are relevant, and electoral votes are calculated at the state level, so state-level information is relevant (although obviously the individual states matter much more than raw numbers). Counties don't enter into it.

Oh, BTW, please cite where I claimed that Clinton won a majority of votes in his victories. I am well aware that he won pluralities, not majorities. And you know what? The number of counties he won, or didn't win, didn't make a bit of difference in either one.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 14, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

This should put to rest concerns about Hillary's competency.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on April 14, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

MJ Memphis The reference to Clinton was to another writer. My reference to you was your response to the counties. I won't complicate it any further. Republicans will still control the senate, the house and the white house after the 2006 election. End of story. This blog was about Hillarys sucking up so much cash that could have made more races competitive. So I am not the fall guy for the reason that your party has accepted that they are permanently the minority.
I could care less about the counties, thats how we as r's were organized last election cycle to turn out the vote. What was your strategy again?

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

We were hit with just as hard and more hurricanes, big difference, his name is Jeb.

Or, big difference, New Orleans is BELOW sea level you thoroughly dishonest, lying, mendacious, piece-of-shit fuck.

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

I could care less about the counties, thats how we as r's were organized last election cycle to turn out the vote. What was your strategy again?

I thought the R's strategy was to first call it a "strategery" and second to always disenfranchise voters.

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Oh don't you wish, so that you could finally stop pretending that the swiftboating wasn't because many, many Vietnam vets viscerally hated his guts for his actions, that it was just politics as usual. Guess again.

You won't see another swiftboating unless Kerry runs again.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK
The swiftboaters won the election for Bush/Cheney/ROVE nothing more nothing less. I would venture again that we will soon be confronted with "Retired Flag Officers for the Truth" soon and the trail will lead back to Karl.

Posted by: neil on April 14, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060413/ap_on_go_co/mccain_gop_woes

Well, McCain seems to think the midterms will be hard for the GOP.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on April 14, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

You won't see another swiftboating unless Kerry runs again.

Right, because the R's NEVER do "swiftboating". Right John McCain (2000)? Right Max Cleland (2002)? Right?

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly First of all let me commend you on your elegent expressions. Are you currently in office. So I take it you have never been through a hurricane. Your belief is that only Hurricanes that hit places "Below Sea Level" are in danger or would have damage. In our state we actually sent all of the emergency vehicles, etc out of state inside secure areas so they would be available for response after the hurricane, thus you did not hear Jeb crying on t.v. that all of their emergency vehicles were not available. I acknowledge not everyone understands about preparing. In florida we have a 2 week period which you can buy hurricane supplies tax free. See how easy that is..

C kelly yes our strategy is to disenfranchise the voters that is why we have control of the white house, senate and the house. You found out our secret to victory.

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

As a test-book example of a 'paleocon', I tear myself apart over the gross incompetence, the criminal behavior, and the immoral nature of modern Republicans. And the way they so quickly wrap themselves in the American flag and fill the air-space with repetitive drivel so disconnected from facts and reality reveals them for the true scoundrels they are. Midgets compared to great leaders and thinkers(conservative AND progressive) of even our recent past.

My long-term fear has always been that the American people will eventually realize this cancer for what it is, and throw the entire government over to the Democrats with such force that I will not see a true conservative government again in my lifetime.

But then, the dark clouds part and through the gap in the sky I see a shining ray of hope. On this day, as on nearly every previous day, that ray of sunshine is the boobiness of the loyal opposition. The great news this day is that Hillary is going to run, and the Dems cannot hand over tehir money fast enough.

These tears of laughter will not erase from my vision that moment during the 2004 DNC when the cameras cut away to her in the balcony while Barack Obama was delivering the single Kennedy-esque moment of the Democrats in the past 35 years. While I had bells going off in my head thinking this was a leader who people will follow, Hillary was hiding her contempt behind a thin veil of worry over her 2008 chances even within her own party.

But as long as the Democratic party is evenly divided between the timid (who somehow manage to hold the power of the party) and the nutcases who failed to realize that they are still clinging to a world view which was proven wrong back in the 80's, there is no chance that the Republican party will lose control of the steering wheel any time soon. Even though the car has already zoomed off the cliff...

Posted by: PaleoAnon on April 14, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Neil...
The swiftboaters won the election for Bush/Cheney/ROVE nothing more nothing less.

Good on'em

ckelly
Right, because the R's NEVER do "swiftboating". Right John McCain (2000)? Right Max Cleland (2002)? Right?

Let's be exact. Swiftboating is the act of one's fellow sailors and soldiers (not pols and spinmasters and hatchetmen) coming out and publicly vehemently denouncing you. Never seen it happen before. Doubt I will again, unless Kerry runs. I can't think of another politician who is so hated by many of his fellow veterans. I'm amazed that you don't see that. Blinders, I guess.

McCain wasn't swiftboated, and neither was Cleland. they were attacked by repub hacks. Which sucked. Big diff, though.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

How much if at all does it bother people here that Sen. Clinton's pre-2008 campaign strategy is almost identical to then-Gov. Bush's pre-2000 campaign strategy?

Both strategies had two necessary components: high name ID, and historically high levels of fundraising. Bush at least had had a respectable if not scintillating tenure as governor of Texas, though that by itself would only have gotten him a seat at the convention rather than a place on its podium if his last name had not been Bush. Clinton's major achievement to date has been her marriage to the former President; without that, she would not be in the Senate and probably would not even live in New York.

I expect nearly all Democrats would say, never mind that, Hillary Clinton is still way better than Bush. Fair enough. But the Democratic Party is a long way from settling on its Presidential nominee for 2008. So it seems to me the question ought to be, is Hillary Clinton really the best the Democratic Party has to offer?

You can look at this either from the standpoint of her merits as a potential candidate, or as a potential President (I'm old-fashioned enough to think that both should matter). Either way, it is worth bearing in mind that in the last two Presidential election cycles the Democrats had a choice, first between a heavyweight legislator and a sitting Vice President (in a year when any Democratic Presidential nominee should have won easily) and four years later from a large field of candidates with qualifications ranging from sterling to laughable.

You wound up with Al Gore and John Kerry. Now, again, you could say with conviction that you think them way better than Bush. But were they really the best Democrats available? They had the highest name ID, and the most money, just as Sen. Clinton does now. But were they the party's best candidates in a general election? Were they really the party's best shot to give America a good, let alone a great President?

Democrats can answer these questions for themselves. They have about 21 months until the 2008 primaries start, and the clock is running.

Posted by: Zathras on April 14, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Zathras Very Nice posting. It involved thought and diagnosis. At this time it feels like everyone in the party is running for the dem nomination. Just like with Kerry there is no one that the rep would rather face than Hillary. All you have to do is mention her name in a mailer and reps break out the checkbook. A jr. senator from n.y. does not bring fear into the hearts of r's. At this point the r's do not have a clear leader for the nomination either. But I still ask, is the only area the dems are interested in is the white house, have they completely given up hope for ever taking back the house which they controlled for over 60 years or to take back the senate. Who is in charge of leading this charge?

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

VJ: Candi can never run. All you would have to do is air the video of her saying 'Who would have imagined that they would hijack airliners and use them as missiles to ram into buildings ?'.

And you think Dems would actually do that?

Did anyone run the tape of W in white tie saying "What we have here are the haves and the have mores. Some people call them the elite, but I call them my base."

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

daveyo: We were hit with just as hard and more hurricanes, big difference, his name is Jeb.

Yeah, it sure helps to get FEMA on the case when the hurricanes hit a state where the President's brother is governor and it's an election year. Basically you are praising corruption.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 14, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

So it seems to me the question ought to be, is Hillary Clinton really the best the Democratic Party has to offer?

I think she's the most talented. She'd make the best President.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, it sure helps to get FEMA on the case when the hurricanes hit a state where the President's brother is governor and it's an election year. Basically you are praising corruption.

Yea, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin were doing a bang up job in their state. And still are. Heh.

They need Bobby Jindall for Governor.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

I was as pissed off as the next guy with the Nader bloc in 2000, but I swear to god. If the Democrats don't pull their heads out of their asses, and grow a pair, I'm voting Green the next time around.

Posted by: SteveK on April 14, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: McCain wasn't swiftboated, and neither was Cleland. they were attacked by repub hacks. Which sucked. Big diff, though.

More like a distinction without a difference. Same tactic, same effect.

Swiftboating is the act of one's fellow sailors and soldiers (not pols and spinmasters and hatchetmen) ...

Do you know the difference between grass and astroturf? Or do you think that it's a coincidence that the SBV had political connections going back to Nixon.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist You have figured it out. Hurricanes hit states based on who the govenor is related to. Do you think having all of those people go to the dome with no supplies was the fault of FEMA. Do you think the fact that they did not transport or have a plan to evacuate the area was FEMAs responsibility. FEMA is not in charge, they are there at the bequest of the local agencies. Does Louisiana have 2 tax free weeks to buy hurricane supplies? It is a mute point now. Louisiana is forever changed and New Orleans will have a very small influence in Louisiana votes. With the distribution of the residence, many to Texas in 2010 the new census will likely reflect less for this once powerful state. Yes FEMA only helps states where the president is related to someone. Good observation.

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I thought Swiftboating was forming a group financed by bigwig Republicans like Texan Bob Perry to publicly lie and smear the opposition's candidate. Must have just been a coincidence then that Fatcat Republicans like Bob Perry were behind the formation and funding of the Swift Boaters. I'm amazed that you don't see that. Blinders, I guess.

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

daveyo, first of all let me say that my expressions fit you to a tee.

Your belief is that only Hurricanes that hit places "Below Sea Level" are in danger or would have damage.

No, my belief is that only places below sea level and surrounded by broken-down levees would have the type of catastrophic flooding and death after a hurricane that New Orleans had. And my belief that you are a dishonest hack is bolstered by your every post.

Posted by: ckelly on April 14, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

In a populated state like New York or California $30million is not enough to run a good senate race. Hillary had more than that in her campaign fund the last time she ran in New York. $10 or $15 mil might be fine in Wisconsin or Washington but not close in New York. Unfortunately for repubs $30 million does not make Hillary a presidential hopeful or contender. She's just getting ready for a New York senate election. She'll need at least $50 million.

Posted by: MRB on April 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

SteveK wrote: I was as pissed off as the next guy with the Nader bloc in 2000, but I swear to god. If the Democrats don't pull their heads out of their asses, and grow a pair, I'm voting Green the next time around.

I changed my voter registration from Democrat to Green last year, after being a registered Democrat since 1972 (and donating money and work to the 2004 presidential primary campaign of Dennis Kucinich). The primary reason was the Democratic leadership of my county government (Montgomery County, Maryland), which is every bit as much of a corrupt cash-and-carry bought-and-paid-for-by-big-business sleazy gang as the Bush administration. But disgust with the cowardice and incompetence and corporate ass-kissing and Bush-enabling of the national Democratic leadership (including Hillary Clinton) was also a factor.

For the record, Ralph Nader is not and has never been a Green or a member of the Green Party. In 2000, he accepted the Green Party's nomination to run for president on the Green ticket, which granted him immediate ballot access in states where the Green Party, through many years of hard, grassroots work, had gained such access.

During that campaign, Nader repeatedly said that two key purposes of his run were (1) to encourage the Democrats to put forward truly progressive candidates and (2) to build the Green Party as a national progressive political force.

In 2004, Nader betrayed both of those promises.

In 2004, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich ran as an outspoken progressive for the Democratic presidential nomination. Nader did absolutely nothing to help Kucinich. Also, Nader announced that he would not even seek the Green Party's nomination. Instead, he ran as an independent, but in a cynical move to take advantage of the Green Party's ballot access, he asked them not to even nominate a candidate, but to "endorse" his campaign.

The Green Party wisely chose not to endorse Nader, instead nominating long-time grassroots Green Party activist David Cobb. Cobb made a point of not campaigning for president in "close" states, instead using his presidential candidacy to help raise the profile of Green candidates running for state and local office.

I am fortunate to live in the solidly Democratic state of Maryland, where for many years the Democratic presidential nominee has won by a large margin, so if I don't care for the Democratic nominee I can vote Green without worrying about changing the outcome of the election. If a Democratic vs. Republican race for the presidency is ever so close in Maryland that a few votes for a Green candidate would make a difference in the outcome, then that Democrat is going to lose in a national landslide anyway.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 14, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly
Oh, I thought Swiftboating was forming a group financed by bigwig Republicans like Texan Bob Perry to publicly lie and smear the opposition's candidate.

Well you see, you were just plain wrong.

Must have just been a coincidence then that Fatcat Republicans like Bob Perry were behind the formation and funding of the Swift Boaters.

Wrong again. He may have been right there with them, as the swift vets were a repubs wet dream, but you're too stupid to recognize the uniqueness of having almost everyone you served with in the military (your band of brothers!) hate your guts.

Alex...
Red State Mike: McCain wasn't swiftboated, and neither was Cleland. they were attacked by repub hacks. Which sucked. Big diff, though.

More like a distinction without a difference. Same tactic, same effect.

All the difference in the world. The swift vets had total credibility. Repub hacks have none, but with the faithful.

Do you know the difference between grass and astroturf? Or do you think that it's a coincidence that the SBV had political connections going back to Nixon.

Enemy of my enemy...

Do you know the difference between a repub hack and a decorated war veteran? Or a POW Medal of Honor winner? How conveniently you ignore the Stolen Honor POWs who came out against Kerry, because it doesn't fit your meme.

Name another group of vets who have ever come out against a politician they served with, almost to a man, like the swifties did against Kerry.

You can't.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: I think she's [Hillary] the most talented.

What are her talents, and what has she done to demonstrate them?

She screwed up the UHC initiative by making it so complex that many didn't trust it, and by doing secretive negotiations. As NY Senator she's supported a war predicated on lies (alas, hardly the only Dem) and is a charter member of "outsourcers 'r' us".

Bill at least had charisma (yeah, it made me wanna puke, but I try not to vote on my emotional reaction).

Sorry, but anybody named Clinton is sooo '90's. Stop living in the past. BTW, the dot bomb bubble burst.

Some folks want a woman for president? Fine by me. Let's get one that made it on her own though (there are plenty), instead of someone who rode her husband's coattails to be a carpetbagger.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike wrote: ... almost everyone you served with in the military (your band of brothers!) hate your guts.

Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh tells you, it is not the case that "everyone" Kerry served with in the military hated his guts. In fact, that is a blatant lie and I challenge you to offer any evidence at all to back it up.

Few if any of the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" actually served with Kerry. And all of them were repeatedly proven to be liars, and their leader was indeed hired by Nixon back in the early 1970s to attack Kerry when he returned from Vietnam and spoke out against the lies and corruption of the civilian leadership that was sending young Americans to die for their lies. I've heard the tape of Kerry debating that guy on TV back then, and the guy was spewing the same fake, phony red-baiting bullshit then that he did in 2004. He was a career, paid professional liar for the GOP.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 14, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: The swift vets had total credibility.

The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" were repeatedly proved to be liars. You are full of shit. Your brain has obviously been turned to mush by Rush.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 14, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: you're too stupid to recognize the uniqueness of having almost everyone you served with in the military (your band of brothers!) hate your guts

Such polite discourse. Fortunately I'm not too stupid to read.

members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claim that they "served with John Kerry." ...
While the veterans attacking Kerry in the ad are veterans of the Vietnam War and may have served at the same time as Kerry, as The New York Times reported on August 5, the Kerry campaign noted that "none of the men had actually served on the Swift boats that Mr. Kerry commanded." Adm. Roy F. Hoffman, one of the veterans in the ad, has even "acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor," the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on May 6, "and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."
...
In contrast, many of the veterans who have appeared on the campaign trail with Kerry did serve alongside him. The Wall Street Journal's Albert R. Hunt noted in his August 5 "Campaign Journal" column, titled "Sham Charges Against a War Hero": "Indeed, 10 of the 11 men who served on his two swift boats all have sworn by John Kerry; nine living members were in Boston [for the Democratic National Convention]."

So much for "the swift vets had total credibility", or his "band of brothers" being against him. Ok, not quite a clean sweep. Only 10 out of the 11 men under his command swore by him. What an awful endorsement!

BTW, I agree that being a MoH recipient carries a special credibility with it. So for your reading pleasure, here's a long list of vocally pro-Kerry vets, including half a dozen MoH recipients:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerry/kerryvets091504st.html

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

I am beginning to feel that SecularAnimist's direct approach in dealing with these idiots is the most appropriate one.

If they are full of shit, just call them on it. No need to try to engage in civil discourse with shills or morons line Red State or tbrosz etc.

Posted by: lib on April 14, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

'daveyo' posted:

"sorry to confuse you with facts, but in neither election did Clinton get 50% of the vote"

Not atypical with a three-way race. He did however garner a MASSIVE electoral landslide.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 14, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with Hillary is not her husband, but her continued support for the war. Either she keeps this position right through election day, and alienates her base, or turns agains the war long after the public, and can (legitimately) be labeled a waffler. I honestly think that no Democrat still supporting the war in April 2006 will be an electable candidate in 2008. This is seperate from any moral objections I might have; it is politically suicidal. Thanks to her influence and fundraising ability she might get the nomination. But she is not electable, and if it is her against McCain or Condi you might as well vote Green, or Bozo, or BYOB party, because Hillary is not going to be president.

Posted by: Gar Lipow on April 14, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Well at least they remember serving with him unlike G.W. heh heh.

Posted by: Booo on April 14, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton won 80% of the counties in the U.S.

Posted by: Booo on April 14, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

How many of those Swift Boat Liars actually served with Kerry? Oh yeah, almost none of them. How many of them suddenly changed their opinion of Kerry after the Bush team found a way to launder money to them? Oh yeah, almost all of the ones who did serve with Kerry. How many Republicans does it take to tell the truth? Trick question, Republicans don't do truth.

Posted by: RSM on April 14, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

secular
Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh tells you, it is not the case that "everyone" Kerry served with in the military hated his guts. In fact, that is a blatant lie and I challenge you to offer any evidence at all to back it up.

I didn't say "everyone" I said "almost everyone", and I offer the Swift Vets to back up my claim.

Alex
So much for "the swift vets had total credibility", or his "band of brothers" being against him. Ok, not quite a clean sweep. Only 10 out of the 11 men under his command swore by him. What an awful endorsement!

Alex, that is an awful endorsement. Note everyone hated him. Just the majority.

First, Kerry did not have a command. He was an Officer in Charge. These are boats, not ships.

Second, they sortied together and operated in the same rivers at the same time, often in coordination with each other. Like multiple aircraft in a squadron.

And the idea that you can bring his direct crew in support of him...no shit! You'd expect all of his shipmates and "band of brothers" to support him!

What should catch your attention (and what still amazes me, knowing the tight-knittedness of the military) is the fact that in particular the majority of his fellows Officers in Charge (his peers) and ALL of his chain of command came out against him. Unprecedented! It was a "man bites dog" moment. I challenge you to find a similar case in our history. There's been a lot of elections in our 200+ years.

Don't take my word for any of it. Head down to the local VFW, thank them for serving, and pulse them for their opinion. If they disagree with you, gently explain to them your position. See if you convince anybody. Tell them how the Swift Vets, most (all?) of whom did a full 12 months in country, are a bunch of liars. I'd bet a year's pay the majority will remain firm in their opinion of Kerry, and it won't be good.

I love this topic on this site. There's some sharp opinions about alot of things here, but when it gets to the military and particularly its culture, all of the sudden folks here go...like Tiger Woods on the greens at the masters.

Spastic. Dohhhhhhhh. Like New Guinea headhunters discussing snow. Like a bunch of rough and ready teamsters discussing the female orgasm. Profound ignorance.

RSM
How many of those Swift Boat Liars actually served with Kerry? Oh yeah, almost none of them.

Ignorance. They are served with him. These are boats. They operate together. They were home based together.

I thought this thread was about Hillary? I like her. She has twice the sack of that backstabbing loser Kerry.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

lib
I am beginning to feel that SecularAnimist's direct approach in dealing with these idiots is the most appropriate one.

Yea, use the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks. It shows you in your best light.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

VJ I believe a "massive" electorial college landslide defintion goes to the gipper Ronald Reagan.

By the way gang I have asked this every which way can any of you brave libs tell me that the dems will win back the senate or the house in 2006. You are all so brave condeming Bush and talking about his poll numbers. So put up or shut up. Which Senate races will the dems take a seat from the r's, they only need 7. Which house race will the d's take a seat from the r's they only need about 25. Please, Please, someone who actually is a liberal democrat speak up.....

Posted by: daveyo on April 14, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

alex: Only 10 out of the 11 men under his command swore by him. What an awful endorsement!

Red State Mike: Alex, that is an awful endorsement. Note everyone hated him. Just the majority.

I said 10 out of 11 swore by him, not swore at him. I'd call 91% in favor a solid majority.

And the idea that you can bring his direct crew in support of him...no shit! You'd expect all of his shipmates and "band of brothers" to support him!

and yet previously you wrote

the uniqueness of having almost everyone you served with in the military (your band of brothers!) hate your guts

Which is it?

Head down to the local VFW, thank them for serving, and pulse them for their opinion. ... I'd bet a year's pay the majority will remain firm in their opinion of Kerry, and it won't be good.

And that would prove what? I doubt anyone at the local VFW post served with Kerry. So as far as his military record is concerned, that would only tell me if the smear campaign was successful. But I already know that it was.

FWIW, the only two Vietnam vets I know both think that the Swifties were a bunch of politically greased lying bastards (that includes the guy who hates Kerry).

For a non-partisan analysis of the numerous contradictions and lack of Swifties credibility see

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Successful smear campaign? hell yes. Accurate history, hell no.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Which is it?

Almost everyone. Visit the swift vet site and look.

And that would prove what? I doubt anyone at the local VFW post served with Kerry. So as far as his military record is concerned, that would only tell me if the smear campaign was successful. But I already know that it was.

I wish you could go back in time before the swifties and visit the VFW. Nothing would have changed. He is hated by most Viet vets for his Winter Soldier testimony and disgracing the uniform as he did. He is generally hated. Not by all. I met a swiftie at a party who spoke up for him. Just most. Swift Boat vets were icing on the cake, and mainly gave the rest of America a glimpse into how most vets think of him.

For a non-partisan analysis...

Oh that's rich. the very first sentence of the non-partisan analysis is

"A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas..."

That would be employing the logical fallacy of circumstantial-ad-hominem. Because a republican funded it, it must not be true. Well, that reasoning is fallacious.

I've said before here, I think the Swifties should have just played and replayed the Winter Soldier testimony, and just let the fact that all of these men that served with him judged him unfit for command, and left it at that. All of the arguing about medals and ribbons took it into "he said/she said" territory about things that happened years ago in the heat of combat.

Every Siwftie that condemned him (and the ones that supported him too) served a full 12 months in Vietnam, unless they went home wounded. They deserve respect. I respect them far more than Kerry.

What were you guys thinking, nominating him?

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 14, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: I wish you could go back in time before the swifties and visit the VFW. Nothing would have changed. He is hated by most Viet vets for his Winter Soldier testimony

There you have it. They hate him for what he said after he served. The Swifties concentrated on denigrating his service, which is a whole 'nother matter. Since you're fond of the term "ad hominem", there's a classic example for you. Rather than criticizing his post-service statements, they smeared his military record.

That would be employing the logical fallacy of circumstantial-ad-hominem. Because a republican funded it, it must not be true. Well, that reasoning is fallacious.

No, it isn't fallacious. The circumstantial ad hominem is quite different from other ad hominem attacks. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic.
...
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

In other words, rational people have good reason to be suspicious in such cases. "Strict logic" requires that the facts be incontrovertibly established, which as you point out is impossible in "he said/she said territory about things that happened years ago in the heat of combat".

Oh that's rich. the very first sentence of the non-partisan analysis is "A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas..."

Ironically your criticism is itself ad hominem. Because you claim bias in one of their statements (it is factually correct) you dismiss all other statements. In fact they would have been remiss not to mention the funding, because it rationally makes people suspicious. That's why the media is supposed to cite the source of its "facts" (lest they receive the Judith Miller propaganda award).

Care to try and debunk some of the numerous other facts they cite?

I've said before here, I think the Swifties should have just played and replayed the Winter Soldier testimony

But they didn't. They smeared his military record, even in cases where they had no personal knowledge, or where they contradicted their earlier statements (including those in military records).

Every Siwftie that condemned him (and the ones that supported him too) served a full 12 months in Vietnam, unless they went home wounded. They deserve respect. I respect them far more than Kerry.

And I presume that in turn you respect Kerry far more than someone who defended the skies of Texas in the Champagne ANG unit.

Posted by: alex on April 14, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

So, does Bill get to redecorate?

Posted by: Matt on April 14, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

So Mike claims "serving with" is just slang for "served in the same general area, without any evidence that they ever met or even interacted at one step removed." That's kind of weak for a "band of brothers." By the way, what was the reaction of Bush's "band of brothers" to his service and candidacy? Oh, that's right, there's not a soul who remembers actually serving with Chicken George of the Faux Flyboys.

I guess when your own service is safely out of range it is easy to condemn those who actually took part in combat where there was a non-zero chance of death. The three Purple Hearts that John Kerry earned look pretty good next to Red State Mike's...um...well, zero. Coincidentally, the same number George Bush has.

In fact, I'm seeing a pattern here. Red State Mike rained death and destruction on people who were unable to fight back, Bush also flew safely out of range of the Viet Cong; both of them exhibiting the bravery of being out of range. No wonder Red State Mike thinks that a cowardly pretend fighter pilot is a better candidate than an actual hero.

Posted by: RSM on April 14, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

spend 50 million to get a 500k job?
Whats wrong with this Picture?
[an Invitation to corruption]

Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on April 14, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kind of fun huh, oh by the way there is one other brother also.

you really need stop drinking the Kool-aid if you think Neil Bush has any chance whatsoever of being elected President.

Perhaps daveyo meant the other one other brother, Marvin. Neil's got the herpes lobby though.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 15, 2006 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Because a republican funded it, it must not be true. Well, that reasoning is fallacious.

No, Mike.

You made that argument from thin air. That isn't the argument presented.

A fact about the SBVT funding was stated. That same fact was not presented as evidence for or against the truth-value of their statements.

Pay attention to the things you say and fewer falsehoods will issue from your keyboard.

Posted by: obscure on April 15, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Every Siwftie that condemned him (and the ones that supported him too) served a full 12 months in Vietnam, unless they went home wounded. They deserve respect.

They deserve no respect whatsoever. They smeared a good man and a fellow soldier. They're scumbags.

Kerry served honorably, and everybody in his crew thought he was a standout officer and a standup guy. When he came back to the US, he joined the large number of US vets who acknowledged atrocities by US forces and vocally opposed the war. The Swifties belong to that group of foolish, conceited, stubborn and anxious men who, having served in Vietnam, took every account of US atrocities as a personal attack upon themselves and everything their country stood for, and decided to deny the truth in an attempt to preserve their fragile egos. The fury and illogic such people are capable of is well known to anyone who has ever known a war veteran.

I know many Vietnam vets, both American and Vietnamese. The war was such a traumatic and horrific experience that it polarized people's reactions wildly. The best American veterans, like Kerry, Chuck Searcy, John Mueller and so on, were able to acknowledge the horrible things they and others had inflicted on Vietnamese, and to cope with them by changing their attitudes towards the world. The stupider and more stubborn ones were unable to face the truth, and reacted with the same kind of dead-end denial and vicious aggression which we are now seeing in conservatives unable to acknowledge what they have inflicted upon Iraq.

Those stupider and more stubborn ones were the ones who slandered John Kerry during his presidential run. They have compounded the misery they inflicted upon Vietnam with the libel of a good man and with the misery they have inflicted on the United States and Iraq by getting George Bush reelected.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 15, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely-

Not that I think there is much of a Monica issue to be made against Hillary, in any case.

Yup...

Then there's Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, et al.--(disclaimer: Bill was a 'horndog'- but I don't really think he 'et al') :o)

Hillary is obviously a powerful feminist who would never have accepted a 'second-class' marriage- with it's numerous insults and indignities- solely in an effort to enable her lust for power...

(tee hee!)

Posted by: fletch on April 15, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

Richard-

As for her support for the war, I don't blame her much for that. Many good people have various opinions there. We have a mess in Iraq, due to 5 years of incompetance and lies on the part of W and company.

The mostest, absoluteliest, completely dumbest president in the entire history of America fooled her for more than five years?

Good campaign strategy...

Posted by: fletch on April 15, 2006 at 3:24 AM | PERMALINK

I have this disturbing feeling that Hillary's fundraising may paradoxically *backfire* on her. She's raised this enormous campaign war chest, she's running against an unknown in New York... and yet some recent polls show that she's actually *losing* popularity and the race is getting closer. She would have to utterly wallop her opponent in the NY Senate Race.

If her adversary gets over 40% of the vote-- let alone 45%-- against Hillary, in spite of HRC's numerous advantages, it will take the "unelectable" albatross that Hillary already has around her neck, and weigh it down a hundred times more. The problem is that HRC has alienated a big chunk of the Dem base with her war stands and her support for an anti-flag burning amendment, and a large fraction of them are not coming back into the Democratic fold if she is nominated.

Personally, I think the Dems should nominate someone like Mark Warner or Wes Clark-- especially Warner, who pulled off amazing feats of populism and widespread support as governor in Virginia-- who would have a much easier time winning Red States and Swing States. Don't pay one bit of attention to early polls (the ones showing HRC getting more support than other Dems, but being crushed by John McCain). At this early point, it's mostly name recognition, which disappears as a major factor once the primaries are under way and people see the candidates.

Posted by: La Loba on April 15, 2006 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK

"The so-called "baggage" is old hat. Unfortunately, even in what is supposed to be an enlightened society, the real problem is that she is a woman. There will be too many husbands who will lie to their wives and only claim they voted for her."

VJ, I hate to disappoint you, but this is not the central problem, as I (a Democrat for decades) personally know dozens of liberal women who will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They're very angry at her for her war hawk turn and her stupidly conservative stands on things like flag-burning, which gain her no support among conservative voters who oppose her for other reasons, while angering her base.

That's the heart of Hillary's problems here-- her actions are incensing the Democratic core, so much so that even liberal New York Dems are very peeved at her. This would be disastrous for the Dems, since it would mean that HRC would be the most likely nominee for 2008, but inevitably lose the general election after that.

Posted by: La Loba on April 15, 2006 at 4:12 AM | PERMALINK

People, please stop with the Condi Rice speculation. For one thing, she's said herself that she's not running, and said so quite vehemently. She's not the type to run and she's made that clear-- she's a reasonably intelligent, accomplished high-level civil servant, with interests opposite of those seeking national office.

Furthermore-- what in the world makes you think she has a slight chance of winning the GOP nomination? She's an unmarried African-American middle-aged woman (I don't need to fill you in on the rumors and whispering campaign that's already started because of this), but more to the point, she's both pro-choice and in favor of affirmative action, two policy stands that are guaranteed to alienate the two most important sections (evangelical Christians and young, middle-class conservatives) of the Republican base. Plus there's anger about her Israel stands, all the baggage from Iraq-- she would not stand even a slight chance. She knows this and she's frankly smart enough not to permanently ruin her reputation in a foolish Presidential bid, preferring instead to carve out a record of accomplishment as a long-serving civil servant.

If I had to guess for the GOP, I'd say Allen, Romney or especially McCain as the top 3. I wouldn't have picked McCain a few months ago but he's turned right and played up his conservative bona fides, while doing grunt work for GOP candidates in the 2006 elections. I suspect he'll probably run as a conservative in the primaries and then as a "moderate but leaning conservative unifier" in the general election. Sadly, I suspect he'd be very tough to beat in the general election. Whatever his flaws, he has amazing broad appeal. I'd see only someone like Mark Warner being able to beat him. Only a popular Red State governor like that could win enough broad-based support to be very competitive.

Posted by: La Loba on April 15, 2006 at 4:24 AM | PERMALINK

So now fundraising is good? I though the left was against politicians bought by corporate largess.

Posted by: MCA on April 15, 2006 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK

Foreign Exchange http://foreignexchange.jubots.com

Posted by: online forex on April 15, 2006 at 6:59 AM | PERMALINK

There you have it. They hate him for what he said after he served. The Swifties concentrated on denigrating his service, which is a whole 'nother matter. Since you're fond of the term "ad hominem", there's a classic example for you. Rather than criticizing his post-service statements, they smeared his military record.

I agree, pretty much. The Stolen Honor vets, the Medal of Honor winners and other POWs, had it right. They just focused on Winter Soldier.

Ironically your criticism is itself ad hominem. Because you claim bias in one of their statements (it is factually correct) you dismiss all other statements. In fact they would have been remiss not to mention the funding, because it rationally makes people suspicious.

We're getting sidetracked here, but they could have opened with, "A group with over 300 cumulative years of time in combat in Vietnam, including every direct reporting senior of LTJG Kerry, has placed ads...," and then buried the point about funding somewhere deep inside. Equally true statement, completely changes the tone of the article. My point? Your statement that the article was nonpartisan does not ring true.

Care to try and debunk some of the numerous other facts they cite?

The fact that these fellow sailors and soldiers, Kerry's band of brothers, came out of the woodwork (over 250 of them) and subjected themselves to abuse to raise this issue is the key fact. As I asked before, can you EVER find a similar case in our political history? We've got a hellacious mudslinging past in politics. If it could have been done, it would have been done. But it hasn't, because we haven't had a Kerry before. Someone who left the fight early and then turned around and stabbed the ones he left behind in the back.

And I presume that in turn you respect Kerry far more than someone who defended the skies of Texas in the Champagne ANG unit.

I respect McCain. I would have seriously considered a different Democratic candidate. Clark would have been better. Smarter than Kerry. You chose the wrong one.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 15, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

So Mike claims "serving with" is just slang for "served in the same general area, without any evidence that they ever met or even interacted at one step removed."

No. "serve with" means the boats operated tactically in groups of 3-6, under the command of a more senior OTC, which stands for Officer in Tactical Command. All of the OIC's (Kerry's) actions are under the direction and supervision of the OTC. Here's what Kerry's had to say...

I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders, recalls Wright. He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didnt see it that way.

That's kind of weak for a "band of brothers." By the way, what was the reaction of Bush's "band of brothers" to his service and candidacy? Oh, that's right, there's not a soul who remembers actually serving with Chicken George of the Faux Flyboys.

Yea, gosh, it should have been easy as pie to get a bunch to come forward and denigrate him.

But they didn't. The best you could do was dig up some loser with Deranged Bush Hatred Syndrome who forged documents and got What's the Frequency Kenneth shit-canned from CBS.

In fact, I'm seeing a pattern here. Red State Mike rained death and destruction on people who were unable to fight back,

I have more combat time than Kerry, across two wars (GWI and Kosovo). I didn't leave my band of brothers in the lurch to go protest. And I was shot at.

You obviously are one of the more ignorant ones around here when it comes to the military.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 15, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Kerry served honorably, and everybody in his crew thought he was a standout officer and a standup guy.

And there it ends. Most others didn't.

Christmas in Cambodia. He wasn't there. It is proven. The man's a liar. Period.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 15, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike,

People around here have different POV's, but I appreciate the levelheaded approach.

But it doesn't make you right.

I can accept the basic premise that Kerry was a more polarizing figure than your average Vietnam vet, because of his postwar actions. But, so what? Or rather, in what way does this represent an
coherent value judgement on Kerry's character?

Mainstream America has arrived at a consensus, to be generous, or at the least a pluarality opinion, that the Vietnam war was a costly mistake that weakened America, and furthermore that excessive brutality and indiscriminate force on our part undermined our stated need to win hearts and minds in an insurgency.

John Kerry's protests made that exact statement, and he should be credited for having the smarts to see it and the guts to realize.

He took a stand. And it cost him, big time. It may have cost him the presidency, decades later.

Although his lackluster campaign probably did more of that. I'll give you this much - Democrats aren't thrilled with him either. You notice there's not much buzz about him in 2008.
But we won't ever agree with you on a Swift-Boaters-were right argument. That well is poisoned.

Posted by: glasnost on April 15, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Can we all simply agree that Red State Mike is a tool, and move on?

You know, Red State Mike, if you want to gain ANY credibility outside of the narrow, rank provinces of the right wing blogosphere, maybe you should finally give up the pretense that the Swift Boat Veterans were, at base, doing anything more than smearing Kerry any way they could?

Because, you see, otherwise you are fully exposed for all to see as nothing more than a partisan hack.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 15, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike, there was no "Champaign Cowards Against Bush" for two reasons: one, no one remembered him, two, even if they did - we are talking about cowards who pulled strings to keep them out of danger. Going out of their way to remind people they were cowards would take bravery. Oh, there is a third reason too, the kind of cowards who would run away are exactly the kind of people who become Republcians. See Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft...but amusingly they are warmongers so those who like killing people while safely out of range support them.

Just because a bunch of Republcians smeared Kerry's service doesn't make them right. Any more than your time flying around being bravely out of range makes you a hero. Shot at isn't quite the same as being shot is it? It's not really that dangerous when the people shooting "at" you have approximately zero chance of hitting you. That's why they call it the bravery of being out of range. In spite of spending more time "in combat" you were never wounded once. I guess the fact that he was awarded three Purple Hearts (indication that his service was, unlike yours, dangerous) as well as a Silver Star (where's yours? Who's the guy you pulled to safety under enemy fire?). No wonder your Kerry envy is so strong.

It appears you want to tear down Kerry because his brave service reflects badly on the coward you choose to support, but even worse because he reminds you of what you could never be.

Posted by: RSM on April 15, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Add me to the ranks of "gee I hope we don't nominate the most polarizing figure in the party that brings every rightwing nut out of the woodwork".

Posted by: Sebastian on April 15, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian, Kerry wasn't polarizing until the Republican Smear Machine worked itself up into high gear. Gore wasn't polarizing until the Republican Smear Machine worked itself up into high gear. Clinton...well, you get the point. The fact is, we have a Republican Smear Machine. It is part and parcel with the Corporate Media. We could nominate the second coming of Christ (or the first, if you are Jewish, a reborn Mohammad if you are...well, you get the point) and the Republican Smear Machine would attack him and say that he hadn't done enough miracles. The fact that their candidate has done none will be the focus of a special report featuring a flawed document and will prove to the true believers that he has, in fact, done miracles and stop focusing on our failure we were talking about yours you Christ following liberal (sorry switched voices there toward the end).

This is not to defend anyone who voted for the war, but a recognition that waiting for a Democratic candidate that will not be smeared by the Red State Mike's, the tbrosz's and the rest of the troll brigade in concert with the Republican Smear Machine is simply giving up before we start.

Posted by: heavy on April 15, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary wouldn't be too bad of a candidate and might even make a good president, if she wasn't so completely bought and paid for by Israel.

We need a president who will defend the USA, not Israel.

Posted by: karen on April 15, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Why even bother nominating someone like Clinton. McCain is obviously the man. He is a genuine American hero. And a real uniter, not a divider. Someone who can actually get reform done.

Posted by: bobnweave on April 15, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Frankly0
You know, Red State Mike, if you want to gain ANY credibility outside of the narrow, rank provinces of the right wing blogosphere, maybe you should finally give up the pretense that the Swift Boat Veterans were, at base, doing anything more than smearing Kerry any way they could?

And as usual you conveniently ignore the POWs who made the Stolen Honor video. Not a single one of them served on Swift Boats.

Really, I'd be a happy clam never to see it come up here. But every time someone kicks out the false meme that anyone can be "swiftboated", I'll squawk. Swiftboating Hillary would involve getting all of her sorority sisters but her closest roommates to unequivocally condemn her, or getting everyone in Al Gore's Vietnam unit to condemn him, or getting the POWs who were imprisoned with McCain to condemn him, or etc. But they haven't happened in the past, and they won't happen in the future. Hell, Clinton didn't even cause as much uproar. Why do you think that is???

The democrat/liberal failure to understand the key differences between your standard repub Rove/Atwater-ish slime machine and what happened to Kerry...I don't get it. You should learn from your mistakes, not stick your head in the sand. Else you will be doomed to repeat them.

RSM sez...
Shot at isn't quite the same as being shot is it? It's not really that dangerous when the people shooting "at" you have approximately zero chance of hitting you.

Heh. Ever look out the window of your airliner and imagine see a SAM or two rising up to smite you? And watch them flying by? Nowhere to duck?

I guess the fact that he was awarded three Purple Hearts (indication that his service was, unlike yours, dangerous)

Didn't miss a single day of duty...some injuries.

As for dangerous, go to a few funerals and tell the 70+ families of naval aviators who died each year in *peacetime* ops that their job isn't dangerous. Moron. Your stupid is showing.

It appears you want to tear down Kerry because his brave service reflects badly on the coward you choose to support, but even worse because he reminds you of what you could never be.

Which explains why I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat?

Moron. Thank you for saying I could never be a Kerry.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 15, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

This is not to defend anyone who voted for the war, but a recognition that waiting for a Democratic candidate that will not be smeared by the Red State Mike's, the tbrosz's and the rest of the troll brigade in concert with the Republican Smear Machine is simply giving up before we start.

Well in that case, if you know you're going to get slimed, may I suggest for maximum polarization...

Cynthia Mckinney
Al Sharpton
Barney Frank
Kathleen Blanco
Marion "the bitch set me up" Barry

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 15, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

'alex' posted:

"And you think Dems would actually do that?"

Hell, even the RightWingers would likely use it against Candi, just as they viscously went after Colin Powell, and for the very same reason. They are both Pro-Choice.

.

"She screwed up the UHC initiative by making it so complex that many didn't trust it"

Untrue. The vast majority of Americans favored the plan.

.

"BTW, the dot bomb bubble burst"

Which was a TINY fraction of the national economy.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 15, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

'La Loba' posted:

"yet some recent polls show that she's actually *losing* popularity and the race is getting closer"

Nonsense.

The Republicans can't even settle on an opponent.

.

"I hate to disappoint you, but this is not the central problem, as I (a Democrat for decades) personally know dozens of liberal women who will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances."

Gibberish.

Who will they vote for, another RightWinger ?

.

"This would be disastrous for the Dems, since it would mean that HRC would be the most likely nominee for 2008, but inevitably lose the general election after that."

This is the same crap we heard about Governor Clinton in 1991.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 15, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

'daveyo' posted:

"I believe a 'massive' electorial college landslide defintion goes to the gipper Ronald Reagan."

President Clinton as well.

Except Reagan left office with the LOWEST approval rating of any modern President (the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal will likely supercede him), whereas President Clinton left office with the HIGHEST approval rating of any modern President since FDR.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 15, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

So Red State Mike, how many of them are killed each year while under enemy fire? What? None? Why is that? Do you know that between 1994 and 2001 there were exactly zero American aircraft downed in Iraq? Did you know that the 1994 incident was when U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters shot down two U.S. Army helicopters? Dead may be dead, but we aren't talking about people dying to protect, or even attack, anything. If 70+ a year are dying then it looks like pilots are safer in Iraq than they are staying home.

But really why is it you are so supportive of the Connecticut Coward? It is because he too played at being a "fighter pilot?" The kind, like you, whose "action" only put him at risk from accident or incompetence.

The facts remain. The Swift Boat Liars for Bush told a story considerably at odds with recorded history. But even so, if we were to accept the Swift Boat Liars word as gospel it still doesn't make Bush's service anything other than cowardice. Accepting their re-write we still see Kerry in Vietnam, Bush in Texas. Accepting their re-write we still see Kerry wounded in action, Bush not in action. Accepting their re-write we still see Kerry saving a man's life, Bush, well, still not there.

The Swift Boat Liars were an ordinary bunch of Republicans whose lies were transmitted by the corporate media in order to defame a War Hero so as to distract from a coward's lack of service. All you've demonstrated here Red State Mike is that you are a Republican. The kind of lowlife who wears a band-aid with a purple heart on it to mock the service of heroes. You still have your purple heart band-aid don't you?

No you can't be a Kerry, you scumbag, that would require that you exhibit real bravery in the face of an actual enemy.

Posted by: RSM on April 15, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Heavy,
Don't misread me, I fully recognize that any Dem candidate can expect to be Swift Boated. Because we've failed to chase the Rovian operatives from public life in the last 4 years, we can expect to take our lumps.

But HC has straddled the war issue with the worst of them, and to deny that she's a polarizing figure for the right (I'm as pro gun as a liberal can be, keep in mind) is lunacy. It's not just about whether the RW smear machine will attack, of course it will--it's about which candidate will be able to effectively shrug off the slings and arrows. HC is the NRA's favorite politician to hate (as a 2a lobbyist, trust me on this) so pretending that she won't bring nuts out of the woodwork that will stay home if the candidate is Warner, Edwards, Feingold, etc is just plain suicide.

Why do the GOP any favors? We know they're going to smear; nominating Hillary is just making it easy for them, and cocking the loaded gun before we hand it to them.

Posted by: Sebastian on April 16, 2006 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK

But really why is it you are so supportive of the Connecticut Coward?

Huh? You must have the teeny tiniest wee little brain to assume that hating Kerry means unequivocal support for Bush. Or be a democrat. News flash dumbass...it's possible to not like both. Personally I think they both suck.

Why is that? Do you know that between 1994 and 2001 there were exactly zero American aircraft downed in Iraq?

So what the hell does that have to do with anything? And while we had no planes shot down over there, we lost planes to all the other reasons planes fall out of the sky. Moron.

All you've demonstrated here Red State Mike is that you are a Republican.

All I've demonstrated is that I understand the anger that most Vietnam vets feel towards Kerry. You've demonstrated that you don't.

Instead of pondering why the Vietnam vets feel so passionately about this issue, you settle for attacking the Swifties and being done with it. Well, the Swifties are just the most visible example of this anger. The tip of the iceberg. If you doubt me, go to the VFW and take an informal poll. As a an example, you *continue* to ignore the Stolen Honor POWs and their equally inflammatory statements against Kerry because you really don't have a counter. Everything they said is true and documented.

Hey, stupid is as stupid does. Nominate him again. I'm sure he'll win this time.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 16, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry that you don't understand that victims of parking accidents aren't the same as victims of enemy fire. No wonder you hate real war heroes like Kerry.

By the way, I'm not even going to bother to respond to other Republican Propaganda - not because it's true but because it is of as little consequence as you. I'm only refuting your obsession with the Swift Boat Liars because it entertains me.

Oh, and too bad about your reading comprehension problem - you have defended Bush's service both directly and by pretending that Kerry's war heroism made him a bad candidate. As I pointed out, even accepting the Swift Boat Liar's word as fact we still see Bush as a coward who avoided the war and Kerry as a hero who went.

Posted by: RSM on April 16, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm only refuting your obsession with the Swift Boat Liars because it entertains me.

Obsession? Heh. Refuting? Double heh.

Who's the happy people that keep bringing up "Hillary's going to be swiftboated" etc., etc., etc.?

You have defended Bush's service both directly and by pretending that Kerry's war heroism made him a bad candidate.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer.

First, Bush never took the podium at his national convention and said, "Reporting for duty, " making his military service the centerpiece of his run. Kerry did. Bad call on his part. I've defended Bush of those that said he was a coward for flying single seat single engine supersonic fighters. That's becaue they're wrong.

Second, My issue with Kerry is with his winter soldier stuff. Same with the POWs of Stolen Honor (Why do you refuse to address their arguments? Because you can't.) The swifties have other issues, but then they served with him and had direct observation of his performance. I didn't. Neither did you, for that matter. so we can argue "he said/she said" until the cows come home.

I can stay on this subject for months. Keep'em coming. In fact, I hope you nominate him again. REally, what this country needs to is refight the Vietnam war one more time by having *the* most polarizing veteran of the war run for president of the Democratic party.

What the hell *were* you guys thinking?

Happy Easter to you too.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 16, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

No one said Bush was a coward for flying. He was a coward because he got out of going anywhere near combat. A child playing with dynamite is in danger but he is neither heroic nor worthy of respect. Those who get the American people to pay for their adrenaline rush aren't automatically entitled respect either.

I realize you want to change the subject from the Swift Boat Liars now that it has been established that your guy was a coward and that the Democrats nominated an honest to God War Hero, but you are the one obsessed with defending the Swift Boat Liars.

The fact is, the Democrats made a mistake. They nominated a war hero under the mistaken impression that this would attract thinking Republicans. Republicans, like you apparently, don't respect war heroes. They respect Republicans, no matter how cowardly. Sure you would vote for McCain, he's a Republican.

You keep saying "What the hell *were* you guys thinking" as if somehow Kerry was trounced. Kerry lost by one state. Kerry lost by a couple of percentage points. This in spite of the abuse of the DHS to create phony terror alerts, this in spite of the Swiftboating of Kerry, this in spite of the politicization of the war, and this in spite of a corporate media that gave Bush a pass on all of the lies that allowed him to become a "War President" as well as his ineptitude in the run up to his failure to prevent the largest terror strike on our soil.

In other words, we were thinking that it was an uphill battle and we should have someone who, unlike his opponent, was a leader we could respect. And much of the nation agreed. Sure there are some Sad Sack's who don't, but even running a mediocre campaign Kerry gave Bush the lowest re-election percentage of any second term candidate to actually win.

Posted by: RSM on April 16, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

even running a mediocre campaign Kerry gave Bush the lowest re-election percentage of any second term candidate to actually win.

If Kerry hadn't "reported for duty" at the convention and then had Edwards say "Ask the men he served with about him" thereby throwing up a huge softball to the swifties, he'd be President now. Sleep on that.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 17, 2006 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, RSM. You're a coward. You've never served. You never would serve. You'd gladly sit back and let men like George Bush defend your shores, sitting in your easy chair while they patrol the skies in their single seat single engine supersonic lawn darts, one small ingested metal part away from being a burning pile of wreckage at the end of the runway.

But you don't care. The only military vet you like is one who will leave the battle as soon as he can find a military regulation that lets him, and then go home and let his hair grow long, wear his uniform in a disgraceful manner, and accuse those who stayed for their full obligation (and whoever had to take Kerry's place because he left early) of committing horrible atrocities. That' the only military you like. The rest, you piss on.

Your welcome for defending your liberties.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 17, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

vj

sorry you have trouble with numbers.
Here are the electorial breakdowns you are so confused over

1996 Clinton 70.45%
1992 Clinton 68.77%
1988 George H 79.18%
1984 Ronald Reagan 97.58%
1980 Ronald Reagan 90.89%


So VJ you are saying Clintons 70.45 & 68.77 of electorial college is greater than George H Bush 79.18 or Ronald Reagans 97.58 & 90.89.

Honestly at least try and look up facts before posting, it is embarassing for you.

'daveyo' posted:

"I believe a 'massive' electorial college landslide defintion goes to the gipper Ronald Reagan."

President Clinton as well.

Except Reagan left office with the LOWEST approval rating of any modern President (the Boy Emperor Clown Criminal will likely supercede him), whereas President Clinton left office with the HIGHEST approval rating of any modern President since FDR.
.

Posted by: daveyo on April 17, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

The only military vet you like is one who will leave the battle as soon as he can find a military regulation that lets him, and then go home and let his hair grow long, wear his uniform in a disgraceful manner, and accuse those who stayed for their full obligation (and whoever had to take Kerry's place because he left early) of committing horrible atrocities.

Mike, I'm flattered that you're still using the script I wrote in 1972. Heh heh...complaining about people's "long hair" is timeless! I love that part, you retro dude!

Posted by: H.R. Haldeman on April 17, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Mike, I'm flattered that you're still using the script I wrote in 1972. Heh heh...complaining about people's "long hair" is timeless! I love that part, you retro dude!

Catch and release. You're not what I was fishing for.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 17, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, RSM. You're a coward. You've never served. You never would serve. You'd gladly sit back and let men like George Bush defend your shores, sitting in your easy chair while they patrol the skies in their single seat single engine supersonic lawn darts, one small ingested metal part away from being a burning pile of wreckage at the end of the runway.

You know nothing about me. I haven't given you enough information to know if what you claim is true or not. You are an psycho pretending to be a psychic. But that's just your desperation showing.

And George Bush didn't defend our shores. What was he defending the skies of Texas from? Iraqi MiGs? George Bush was a weekend adrenaline seeker, a kid with a stick of dynamite on the Fourth of July. George Bush was a coward who stayed as far from the enemy as he could get. That you supported him over a war hero with shrapnel in his leg is your cross to bear.

You are welcome for the training on my dime, the chance to play dangerous games to feed your ego on my dime, the socialized health care on my dime, the massively expensive toys on my dime, and for all of the research that went into keeping you safely out of the way of enemy fire also on my dime.

And you get my apologies for having asked you to bomb people who weren't actually any threat to our liberties and in fact for having given you nothing at all to do that had even the vaguest association with our liberties at all. A better nation would have let you go and find a job in the real world rather than forcing you to suck at the government teat for so long, and to so little purpose.

Posted by: RSM on April 17, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

'daveyo' posted:

"So VJ you are saying Clintons 70.45 & 68.77 of electorial college is greater than George H Bush 79.18 or Ronald Reagans 97.58 & 90.89."

NO, I did NOT.

.

"Honestly at least try and look up facts before posting, it is embarassing for you."

Try actually READING what others post. How embarrassing for YOU.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 17, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

You know nothing about me. I haven't given you enough information to know if what you claim is true or not.

Ditto, Coward.

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 17, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

So, after all of that, you are reduced to mindless name calling. Apoplexy looks good on you.

If all of the posts under your name are to be believed you were in Iraq making Kuwait safe for monarchy, and you were also there bombing SAM sites - which can only be used for self-defense. You were flying planes, exactly zero of which saw fatalities owing to enemy action, and you are deluded enough to think that any of this constitutes "defending my liberties." What did I get wrong?

Now, by inference, given the length of time you claimed to have served (I assume, like myself, you have only given factual information about yourself), I would suggest you still suckle at the government teat. Perhaps you even double dip, collecting your welfare/retirement check along with some job in the munitions industry? But those are just guesses.

Ask yourself this, Red State Mike, how many human beings died at your hands and how did any of their deaths make the United States any more free? If you want to describe this magical transformation that turns dead foreigners into American freedom I will be happy to explain why you are wrong.

Posted by: RSM on April 17, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

You were flying planes, exactly zero of which saw fatalities owing to enemy action.

Bzzzzt! Wrong answer, of course.
http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html

(I assume, like myself, you have only given factual information about yourself

But you haven't given any information about yourself. What are you hiding?

Posted by: Red State Mike on April 17, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

You are right Red State Mike, while you were working hard to ensure that Kuwait would remain a monarchy you may have been under fire (sorry, I extended the incredible safety record of the no-fly zone period back to the actual UN sanctioned hostilities I was wrong not to include the two months of actual combat in your service).

On the other hand, you aren't up to the challenge of demonstrating how helping keep Kuwaiti women in burkas made the United States any more free. You said Your welcome for defending your liberties. I'm just trying to figure out what exactly it was you did that I am supposed to be thanking you for.

Posted by: RSM on April 18, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly